The invention relates, in general, to weapons and, in particular, to reciprocally cycled, externally-actuated weapons.
Reciprocally-cycled weapons may be classified as self-powered or externally-powered. Self-powered weapons, such as those that rely on recoil or gas for operation, may use the high pressure gases developed during cartridge firing to directly or indirectly cycle the mechanisms that perform certain actions. These actions may include cartridge stripping, cartridge feeding, cartridge chambering, bolt locking, cartridge firing, bolt unlocking, cartridge case extraction, cartridge case ejection, and cartridge indexing.
The reliability of self-powered weapons may depend on successful ignition of the cartridge to generate the high pressure gases needed to cycle the weapon. The weapon may be cycled directly (gas-operated), or indirectly (recoil-operated) via the momentum of the fired projectile. A misfire, where the primer is hit but does not ignite the main propellant charge, may result in a malfunction that requires user intervention to extract the unfired cartridge from the chamber of the weapon. With externally-powered weapons, however, a misfire may not stop the continued operation of the weapon and may not result in any down time of the weapon.
Self-powered weapons may be more portable (i.e. lightweight) or mobile than externally-powered weapons because externally-powered weapons may have operating mechanisms driven by actuators that do not rely on the firing forces of the weapon.
Conventional remote weapon systems (RWS), including remotely-controlled weapon turrets, may utilize conventional self-powered weapons that were designed and developed for manned operation. For example, the U.S. military Common Remotely Operated Weapon System (CROWS) may use conventional man-operated, self-powered machine guns, which are removably mounted in the gun system. Conventional self-powered weapons may periodically encounter malfunctions that require human intervention to correct. When clearing the malfunction and/or reloading a weapon, the human may be exposed to danger from enemy fire.
Conventional self-powered weapons may require an initial, manual charging procedure, manual loading of the ammunition belt, and may be inherently less reliable because of dependence on successful firing of the cartridge. Ammunition malfunctions may often need to be manually cleared before the weapon can resume function. Additionally, these manned weapons may require remote actuation of the safe/arm switch and the trigger when used in conventional RWS applications. The remote actuation may require complex mechanisms and high powered actuators to mimic manual operation. The need for precise and reliable functioning and timing of the safe/arm switch and the trigger may impose an immense burden on RWS designers and the systems they produce. Also, these weapons may be mounted using loose quick-release pins, which may affect the weapon's performance characteristics, such as accuracy and dispersion.
Other RWS designs may use existing weapons that are not self-powered, but, on the other hand, the weapons that are not self-powered may not provide the low inertial properties that may be required. Further, RWS designs using conventional self-powered weapons may not be immediately compatible with a variety of types of ammunition that produce significantly different impulse levels when fired. Additionally, RWS designs using either self-powered or externally-powered weapons may not be capable of being rapidly reloaded either remotely or robotically. For example, a conventional RWS may use an ammunition “can” mounted to the RWS structure, or a magazine which feeds ammunition to the weapon via a chute. Neither of these conventional approaches allows the use of multiple ammunition types of a given caliber, or is capable of the unmanned reloading and malfunction clearing required for robotic, remote applications.
Manually operated RWS may be required to have a quick-dismount feature so an operator may remove the weapon to prevent theft and/or commandeering of the weapon by the enemy. The quick-dismount feature, in addition to the external ammunition stowage, may render the weapon and ammunition of conventional RWS vulnerable to theft, when used on a robotic platform. Thus, conventional RWS may not be suitable for most robotic applications because operation of the conventional RWS may require an on-the-spot human operator. These robotic applications may include the remote placement of gun turrets at, for example, roadblocks, or on robotic devices that are remotely controlled by a human operator.
Robotic devices may be commonly used in police and military applications. Systems for mounting firearms on such robotic devices have been developed. As discussed above, these systems for mounting firearms on robotic devices are designed to utilize conventional self-powered weapons. In particular, the weapon, such as a conventional semi-automatic shotgun or an M4 assault rifle, is removably mounted in the system. The conventional system allows a user to wirelessly control actuating mechanisms that perform the typical direct user interface actions, such as releasing the weapon safety switch and pulling the trigger.
Such conventional systems for mounting firearms on robotic devices may have several drawbacks. An enemy can disable the robotic device, remove the firearm from the mounting system, and utilize the firearm against the controller of the robotic device and/or friendly forces. Also, self-powered weapons tend to periodically experience malfunctions, such as misfires. These malfunctions require human interaction and may place the user in a potentially fatal situation. Or, the conventional system may use mechanical devices that simulate the actions taken by a user to correct malfunctions. In either case, the combat availability of the weapon decreases due to the dependence on successful cartridge ignition for mechanical operation. In addition, the placement of a conventional infantry weapon in the mounting system may require a soldier to place his weapon in the mounting system of the robotic device, thereby leaving the soldier personally unarmed during operation of the robotic device.
The use of conventional self-powered weapons in robotic devices may limit the operational capabilities of the armed robotic system due to the intended roles of the individual weapons that are mounted in the devices. That is, a user may choose to place an accurate, semi-automatic assault or sniper rifle on the robot, or a fully-automatic, suppressive fire machine gun on the robot. Each of the guns may be effective for its intended role. But, because of the limited firing rate options of conventional weapons, their effectiveness may be greatly reduced if the firing rate need should change during the combat situation.